Skip to content

Purple Tab PC-002 — New Action Evidence Foundation

GUARDRAIL: PURPLE — COUNSEL-FACING EVIDENCE FOUNDATION

Factual foundation for complaint drafting, organized by candidate cause of action. Every numbered fact carries a record citation and a tier tag: (Documented) — stated in a cited document; (Principal-record) — petitioner's account or a reported statement, anchored to documents where they exist. Cause headings are organizational; cause selection, elements, and pleading language are counsel's. Damages quantification lives in the damages volumes and is not restated here.

PART A — Purpose and Use

This page marshals the factual record in allegation-feedable form under each candidate cause. It sits above the lane treatments: each part links down into the Fraud Claims Record Map, the Purple lane pages, and the White source tabs that hold the underlying documents.

Note on dual listing. Certain facts appear under more than one part — in particular, the remediation-scope record appears under Part 1 (as performance facts) and Part 3B (as misrepresentation facts). This is deliberate: whether those facts plead as breach, as fraud, or as both in the alternative is counsel's call, and the record is marshaled under each candidate heading so that either election is fully supported.

PART B — Part 1: Breach of the Stipulation of Settlement

B.1 Facts

  1. The Stipulation of Settlement in HP 6086/2020 was approved by the court at 9:38 a.m. and filed at 11:28 a.m. on June 29, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc No. 10, so-ordered). Petitioner's executed counterpart is in hand. The instrument record is at White Tab 106B. (Documented)
  2. The Stipulation obligated Respondent to perform the Remediation Work annexed as Exhibit 1, with preparation commencing July 20, 2021 and remediation July 21, 2021 (¶1); required ALC to inspect on completion and Respondent's counsel to deliver the ALC Post Remediation Report to petitioner's counsel (¶4); provided for Olmsted's inspection within 5 days and report within 14 days (¶5); and provided that if ALC and Olmsted agreed the work was not completed, the Mold Remediation Company shall complete the outstanding work and the parties repeat the ¶5-¶9 process (¶8). (Documented)
  3. The work was performed in a window of approximately July 20-27, 2021 by SERVPRO. The executed work departed from Exhibit 1: single-layer removal in the studios rather than demolition to studs, joists, and slab; and a 2-foot cut on the common-hallway wall against the 4-foot removal at Exhibit 1 item 6. The item-by-item comparison is at White Tab 106 and White Tab 113. (Documented)
  4. Olmsted inspected on August 16, 2021, within the ¶5 window. The August 17-18, 2021 laboratory results showed elevated spore levels; Olmsted's transmitting email stated the results were terrible, that all air samples had very elevated pen-asp spore levels, and that the entire scope needed to be done. The lab record is at White Tab 108B. (Documented)
  5. On August 19, 2021, petitioner's then-counsel served a written notice of default on Respondent's counsel, stating: the complete scope of work was not done; the test reports show the mold is not eradicated; this is a notice of default with respect to the stipulation entered into in the HP proceeding. (Documented; contemporaneous correspondence, email corpus)
  6. The ¶8 re-remediation was not performed. Olmsted's August 18, 2022 response and November 7, 2022 follow-up documented scope items never completed and visible mold remaining, at White Tab 109 and White Tab 110. A late-stage corrective proposal in November 2022 was never executed; that record is at White Tab 120A. (Documented)
  7. The full compliance chronology, event by event with citations, is at White Tab 118. (Documented)

B.2 Witnesses

Edward A. Olmsted, CIH, CSP (White Tab 204) — inspections, lab results, non-completion findings. Christopher Roussis (White Tab 203) — the Total Restoration scope. Raheem Coleman (White Tab 208) — the executed work.

B.3 Core exhibits

The so-ordered Stipulation with Exhibit 1 (NYSCEF Doc No. 10; executed counterpart in hand); the ALC PRV (White Tab 108); the Olmsted reports and lab results (WT-107, WT-108B, WT-109, WT-110); the August 19, 2021 notice of default (email corpus); the compliance timeline (WT-118).

PART C — Part 2: Breach of the Warranty of Habitability

C.1 Facts

  1. On October 13, 2019, a catastrophic flood struck Unit G21, displacing petitioner. Petitioner has not resided in the Unit since. (Documented as to the flood; Principal-record as to continuous displacement, anchored to the record throughout this page)
  2. Petitioner commenced HP 6086/2020 by Order to Show Cause on the Verified Petition dated June 29, 2020, seeking mold eradication and repairs required subsequent to the October 13, 2019 flood, findings of violations, and harassment relief under Administrative Code 27-2005(d). (Documented; NYSCEF Doc No. 4; case summary NYSCEF Doc No. 1, case type "HP with Harassment")
  3. Following the July 2021 work, the Unit remained unremediated to the stipulated scope: the August 2021 lab results, the August 2022 audit, and the November 2022 follow-up each documented continuing contamination and incomplete work (WT-108B, WT-109, WT-110, and ALC's own November 2022 additional scope at White Tab 110A). (Documented)
  4. In July 2023, the Unit flooded again. The email record — subject line "G21 Flooded Again!" — with photographs and video showing standing water and visible black mold in the bathroom, hallway, and kitchen areas, is at White Tab 111. (Documented)
  5. On July 18, 2026, a further flood event occurred at the Unit. A verified photographic record (14 photographs, 2 videos) is in hand; photographs were transmitted to Respondent's agent on July 24, 2026. A dedicated binder tab is pending. (Documented as to the photographic record; tab pending)
  6. The Unit's water-intrusion history spans more than a decade; the leak chronology is compiled at White Tab 116. (Documented)

C.2 Witnesses

Petitioner (occupancy, displacement, conditions). Edward A. Olmsted, CIH, CSP (WT-204) — condition findings 2020-2022. Building and event witnesses per the Witness and Personnel Directory.

C.3 Core exhibits

The flood and condition photo/video records (WT-111; the July 2026 photographic set); the inspection chain (WT-107 through WT-110A); the leak chronology (WT-116).

PART D — Part 3: Fraud

The three sub-parts below correspond to Counts A, B, and C of the Fraud Claims Record Map, which carries the full itemized record for each.

D.1 Part 3A — False Completion Certifications and the May 25, 2023 Admission

  1. ALC inspected the Unit on July 28, 2021 — one day after the work window closed — and issued its PRV report on August 3, 2021, stating the apartment had achieved clearance and was free and clean of moisture and microbial growth, with area-specific statements including that Studio 1's walls, ceiling, and floor were removed as per work scope (White Tab 108). (Documented)
  2. The same firm and signatories had inspected the Unit at baseline: Kowalewski's February 7, 2020 inspection and March 18, 2020 report documented approximately 62 sq ft of visible mold and approximately 750 sq ft of water-damaged materials (White Tab 112). Glass co-signed both the 2020 report and the 2021 PRV. (Documented)
  3. Affidavits of Candice Kowalewski, MPH and Jack Glass, MS, CIH, together with the ALC PRV, were filed in the HP proceeding in July 2022 in opposition to the motion to restore, representing the remediation as complete (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 18-20; court-file copies in hand). (Documented)
  4. Olmsted's August 18, 2022 response stated the affirmation was replete with misleading and incorrect statements from Counsel Skaller, Candice Kowalewski and Jack Glass to the degree that it brings into question the veracity of the entire document, and documented, item by item, scope work represented as complete that had not been performed; stated that neither Glass nor Skaller was present during his post-remediation inspection; stated that ALC "remained on site daily" during the work; and stated that the Local Law 61 of 2018 filings required of the mold assessors (work-plan notification, work plan, post-remediation assessment form, and certification) were never made and that required post-abatement moisture testing was not performed (White Tab 109; native transmission at White Tab 125, E31). (Documented; the filing assertions are verifiable against public records -- collection target)
  5. Between the certifications and the filed affidavits and after them, the contemporaneous correspondence of petitioner's then-counsel records: the April 27, 2022 report to Respondent's counsel that Glass "agreed to a further scope of work and agreed to write it up" and that "[b]oth experts agree, I am told, that the unit is not habitable," with Respondent's counsel replying the same day that "Jack is working on a potential new scope of work" (self-designated "for settlement purposes only"); and the June 13, 2022 report that "Landlord lawyer contacted me today and said Jack Glass says the original scope of work was done" (White Tab 125, E22/E26). Glass's own affidavit dates the joint re-inspection to April 11, 2022 (¶12) while characterizing it solely as observation of demolition attributed to Olmsted, silent on the further-scope agreement the contemporaneous correspondence records. (Documented as to the correspondence and the affidavit; reported statements within the correspondence; the settlement designation and its effect are counsel's questions)
  6. On October 7, 2022 -- ten weeks after the affidavits were filed -- the same counsel's contemporaneous email records Respondent's counsel stating that "the scope of work does not appear to have been completed" and that the landlord "paid all that money to have his consultants watch the remediation and it still was not done right" (White Tab 125, E38). (Documented as to the email; reported oral statements within)
  7. At the May 25, 2023 appearance before Judge Remy Smith, Respondent's counsel stated on the record that the completion affidavits were not accurate. The audio record is verified and pinned with timecodes at White Tab 106C; a certified transcript has been ordered. (Documented)
  8. Full treatment: Purple B010 (proof-element matrix), Purple PT-001 (argument skeleton); correspondence corpus at White Tab 125.

D.2 Part 3B — Scope Bait-and-Switch

  1. The scope the parties negotiated was based on the ALC and Total Restoration scope documents — demolition of the three studios down to studs, joists, and slab. Total Restoration's native scope package, produced by Respondent, is at White Tab 104B. (Documented)
  2. Respondent retained two companies to scope the remediation; a third, SERVPRO, performed the work. Petitioner's contemporaneous correspondence states that petitioner had never seen or signed off on SERVPRO's scope of work and had signed based on the ALC/Total Restoration scope agreed during negotiations: an August 2, 2021 email; six written requests for Exhibit 1 on August 13, 2021 (1:41, 2:45, 3:04, 3:22, 4:07, and 6:03 PM); first transmission of Exhibit 1 to petitioner on August 14, 2021, 10:46 AM — fifty-six days after execution and eighteen days after the July 20–27 work window closed — followed by petitioner's two August 15 statements, including his self-correction that the contractor's name had appeared in the stipulation documents sent to him. The record contains no transmission to petitioner of any SERVPRO-issued scope (WT-106D §G); the complete transmission record, verbatim with source pins, is WT-106D. (Documented; contemporaneous correspondence, email corpus)
  3. Exhibit 1 as annexed to the so-ordered Stipulation carries eight printed margin comments initialed "JG" proposing reductions to the written scope — exposure limited to 2 feet, a single limited containment, no biocide, household detergent, and a query of the clearance-spore standard. The comments appear identically in the submitted copy (NYSCEF Doc No. 9), the so-ordered copy (NYSCEF Doc No. 10), and petitioner's executed counterpart. Attribution and verbatim transcription: White Tab 106, Section C. (Documented as to the comments' presence and text; Principal-record as to attribution)
  4. The executed work matched the reductions rather than the written scope — including the 2-foot hallway cut against item 6's 4-foot provision (White Tab 113). The field-instruction record, including the instructions reported by the SERVPRO project manager, is at White Tab 114, Part C. (Documented as to executed conditions; Principal-record as to the reported field instructions)
  5. The scope of work Respondent actually issued to SERVPRO is not in petitioner's possession and is a discovery target. (Documented gap)
  6. Full treatment: Purple B007 (three-step narrative and proof matrix), Purple B004 (the court-ordered scope as the operative promise, including the Jack Glass margin-notes section).

D.3 Part 3C — Insurance Proceeds and Fixtures (Status-Flagged)

Status flag: pending verification against the Verified Petition, dated June 29, 2020. The Petition is not on the NYSCEF docket (legacy paper file); retrieval is in progress. This sub-part is presented for counsel's evaluation only after that verification.

  1. Following the October 13, 2019 flood, Respondent pursued an insurance recovery relating to the flood-damaged premises. The documented anchors: the December 3, 2019 non-disclosure request and the January 21, 2020 gut-renovation specification for the insurance claim, compiled with the surrounding sequence at White Tab 115 and White Tab 104. (Documented as to the anchored emails; Principal-record as to the surrounding sequence)
  2. On February 26, 2020, a Total Restoration employee disclosed that the claim had been approved for a full settlement amount; the disclosure and the reaction to it are recorded at White Tab 202. Disbursement records are a discovery target. (Principal-record)
  3. Petitioner's own insurance claim was declined (White Tab 103). (Documented)
  4. The fixtures and improvements at issue were installed by petitioner. Respondent's Verified Answer pleads that the building is an interim multiple dwelling subject to the Loft Law (NYSCEF Doc No. 5). The tenant-fixture ownership predicate is in development. (Documented as to the Answer; predicate in development)
  5. Full treatment: Purple T1 (dual-victim structure), Purple B001.

PART E — Part 4: Factual Predicate for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

  1. The Unit has never been remediated to the stipulated Exhibit 1 scope: the most recent inspections of record (August and November 2022) documented incomplete scope execution and continuing contamination (WT-109, WT-110, WT-110A). (Documented)
  2. Subsequent flood events (July 2023; July 18, 2026) and the decade-plus leak chronology (WT-111; WT-116; the July 2026 photographic record) document continuing water intrusion. (Documented)
  3. Petitioner remains displaced from the Unit and has been since October 13, 2019. (Principal-record, anchored to the displacement record throughout)
  4. The condition and scope records above supply the factual predicate for relief directed to completing remediation and restoring petitioner to a habitable unit; the form of relief is counsel's. (Documented record; framing reserved)

PART F — Part 5: ALC as Candidate Additional Defendants

  1. The ALC Group, LLC d/b/a ALC Environmental held NYS Mold Assessor Company License No. 00034, valid during the PRV period (White Tab 303). (Documented)
  2. Candice A. Kowalewski, MPH (NYS mold assessor license MA01387, verified) conducted the baseline and PRV inspections and signed the PRV as inspector and lead author (White Tab 205). (Documented)
  3. Jack Glass, MS, CIH, ALC's Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety, co-signed the 2020 baseline report and the 2021 PRV; the Exhibit 1 margin comments are attributed to him at White Tab 106, Section C; and Olmsted's record reflects Glass acknowledging at the April 11, 2022 joint re-inspection that further work was needed, with a written plan promised and never provided (his response's "last July" phrasing is reconciled to that meeting on Glass's own sworn ¶12 date, Olmsted's invoice, and the correspondence -- see White Tab 125, reading note 7) (White Tab 109, White Tab 206). The correspondence corpus extends the sequence: the April 11, 2022 Glass-Olmsted site meeting, the April 27, 2022 report of Glass's agreement to a further scope and both experts' reported view that the unit was not habitable, and the June 13, 2022 reversal (White Tab 125). (Documented; attribution Principal-record)
  4. Both individuals executed the July 2022 affidavits filed with the court (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 18-19). The entity and both individuals are identified as candidate additional defendants; the naming decision, theory, and timing are counsel's. (Documented as to the filings)
  5. On the supervision role: the October 7, 2022 contemporaneous email of petitioner's then-counsel records Respondent's counsel stating the landlord "paid all that money to have his consultants watch the remediation" (White Tab 125, E38) -- bearing on the consultants' role during the 2021 execution; consistent with Olmsted's August 18, 2022 statement that "ALC remained on site daily" during the work though the scope called only for initial and completion inspections (White Tab 109). (Documented as to the email and the response; reported oral statement within the email)

END — Purple Tab PC-002 — New Action Evidence Foundation v1.3